> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:06:09 -0400 > > >> It could be, although it would make sense to manipulate group names in > >> "encoded" form, in the sense of "not decoded". > > > It could ``make sense'', but it's IMO a bad idea, since, as we both > > know, Emacs is not well suited to handling unibyte strings. > > Huh? Unibyte strings are perfectly well supported as far as I know. > > You have to be careful to remember which strings are unibyte and which are > multibyte, so you don't decode multibyte strings or encode unibyte strings, > and especially not implicitly (by inserting a unibyte string in a multibyte > buffer or vice versa). So if you mean that it requires discipline, then > I agree, but otherwise I don't know what you're referring to.
To me, the second paragraph is precisely the meaning of ``not well suited'' and ``not perfectly supported''. What kind of ``well supported'' is that if I as a programmer need to carry with each string additional information, and make sure I know _exactly_ what primitives are invoked by every function I call, to take care that I don't inadvertently call something that deep inside assumes I passed a multibyte string? That way lies madness. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
